The Atonement.

BY THE

Entered according to Act of Cong- ess, in tho year 1867, Ij

Westcott * Thomsow, Stereotypers, Philada.

CONTENTS

PART I.

CHAPTER I. PAOB

INTKODUCTORV.

Vital importance of the doctrine — General aj;rocnicnt of the Christian Church in all ages — Danger of Ration:i!isni, and its prevalence in the present age — All error partial truth — Systems of doctrine unavoidaVjle — All controversy upon tlie suliject is to be determined by a sim})]e appeal to Scripture — Objections to the evidence upon which a doctrine rests to be frankly considered, but all rationalistic objections to the plain teachings of inspiration inadmissible — The plan of the following treatise briefly stated... 13

CPIAPTER II.

The attitude of God, of the individual sinner, and of the moral universe in relation to the Atonement severally considered — The Orthodox doctrine shown to be comprehensive and consistent, and the Moral Influence and Governmental Hypothesis shown to be partial and inconsistent — The elements of the Orthodox Doctrine stated in respect to its Motive, its Nature, and its Effects 25

CHAPTER III.

DEFIXITIOU OP TERMS, AND SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS INVOLVED IN THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT.

Necessity of technical terms, and need of acurate definitions — Atonement and Satisfaction — The difference between a penal and a jiecuniari/ satisfaction — Penalty and distinction between Calamities, Chastisements and Penal Evils — Meaning of the terms Substitution and Vicarious — Expiation and Propitiation — Impetration and Application — Redemption and Atonement — Meritum and Satisfactio, or the distinction between actice and jfdnuve obedience — The principal points involved in the doctrine stated 32

CHAPTER IV.

The ultiraate motives of all G -d's actions are in himself proved —

CONTENTS.

The Scriptures predicate holiness of the divine nature as well as of the divine will — They as^scrt that God hates sin, and regards it as intrinsically worthy of jtuni^luiient — The ditfcrcnt answers to the question, Why does God punish sin? considered — The hypothesis that Disinterested IJenevolence is the whole of Virtue, disproved — The punishment of sin intrinsically right, and essential to the moral perfection of God — Justice voluntary, but not optional — Grace necessarily a matter of sovereign choice 48

CHAPTER V.

THE CHURCH DOCTRINE OP THE ATONEMENT PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE DIVINE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUTABLE.

The divine law shown to be immutable — Dr. Fiske's admissions — The law ceremonial and moral — The Penalty shown to be an essential part of law — The admissions and inconsistencies of Fiske and Barnes — The sufferings of Christ shown not to have been a " substitute for the penalty," to have been not identical with the sufferings demanded of his people in j)erson, considered as suffering, but precisely identical considered as penalty — Scripture teaches that Christ came with the design of fulfilling, not relaxing the law — The position of Dr. John Young as to the nature of moral law, and its penalty stated and refuted 58

CHAPTER Vr.

The distinction between the Natural, Federal and Penal relations which men sustain to the divine law stated and applied 72

CHAPTER Vir.

ADAM WAS, IN THE STRICT SENSE OP THE AVOUDS, THE FEDERAL REP- RESENTATIVE OP THE race; and THE ANTENATAL FORFEITURE, OP WHICH EACH OF HIS DESCENDANTS IS SUBJECT, IS THE PENAL CON- SEQUENCE OF HIS PUBLIC SIN.

The admitted facts of man's birth into an inevitable condition of sin and misery stated— The Orthodox and the Rationalist agreed that God could not bring the new-born soul into such a condition, unless his natural rights had been justly forfeited before birth — The two questions thence arise, why God allows such a curse to be transmitted, and now.it is transmitted — I. The attemjjted solutions which deny that man is subject to a just antenatal forfeiture — The Manichajan doctrine of the absolute impreventability of sin — Pantheistic hypothesis that sin is a necessary incident to moral development— The New England Root Theory and Placa>us' doctrine— Mediate and Comcqucnt /inputat ion sUitcd and refuted — 11. The attempted solutions which admit antenatal forfeiture — Theory of pre-existence is maintained by Dr. E. Eeeeher and Julius Miiller stated and refuted — The Realistic theory of our oneness with Adam, as advocated by Drs. Raird and Hhedd, stated, proved not to have been the doctrine of the men who wrote the Creeds of the Reformed Churches, and not to be true — The Doctrine of President Edwards — The aeveral points i-.volvcd in the true dc?trine> 1st, As to the

CONTENTS. O

PAQl

imputation of guilt, and 2(1, As to the origir ation of moral corruption in each now-horn soul, stated, and the whole proved from Scripture, and the consent of Churches 78

CHAPTER VIII.

CHRIST WAS, IN THE STRICT JKWISH SKNSE OF THE TERM, A SACRIFICE. THE JEWISH SACKIKICES WERE STRICTLY PIACULAR, AND THEY WERE TYPICAL OP THE SACRIFICE OF OUR LORD.

Heads of argument stated — I. The divine origin of Sacrifices proved — The primitive Sacrifices were piacular — The principle established by the common consent of mankind — II. That the Jewish Sacrifices were strictly piacuhir, the doctrine of the entire Christian Church — The opinions of IJUhr. ^lauriee, Jowett, Bushnell and Young — The ditiercnt kinds of Sacrifice — The Orthodox doctrine proved (a) from the occasions upon which the sacrifices were offered, (6) The qualifications and sacrificial designations of the victims, ((■) Tlic ritual of the sacrifice, (</) from their declared eiTccts, and (<) from the testimony of the inspired prophets, and of ancient heathens, Jews and Christians — III. The Sacrifices of the law were typical of the sacrifice of Christ — This proved from the words of Christ — from the fact that the Old Testament sacrifices are declared to he shadows, tfec, of which Christis the substance, and from the fact the.Scriptures explicitly assert that Christ saves his people by being oirercd as a sacrifice for them 122

CHAPTER IX.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PROVED BY THE FACT THAT CHRIST EFFECTED SALVATION BY ACTING AS THE HIGH PRIEST OF HIS PEOPLE.

The position assumed by the advocates of the Moral Theory as to the nature of Christ's Priesthood stated — The same as to the advocates of the Govermental Theory — I. The Priest was ordained to act in behalf of man in those things which bear vpon God — That the effect of his work primarily terminates upon God, proved from Scripture — II. The work of the priest secured the salvation, not the salvability, of those for whom he acted, and he acted as the representative of certain persons definitely — III. That Christ was a real and not a metaphorical priest, proved from Scripture — The inferences from these positions deduced 150

CHAPTER X.

Christ's sufferings were strictly and definitely vicarious. Bushnell's perversion of the phrase Vicarious illustrated and disproved— The true relation of the words. Vicarious. Substitute, Representative and Mediator, stated — Barnes' definition of a substitute accepted as true — That Christ is in the strict sense the Substitute of his people and his sufferings vicarious, proved — Barnes' inconsistency exposed 161

CHAPTER XL

Passages which assert the fact cited — Different senses of the word '' sin" in Scripture — The scriptural usage of the phrase '' to im-

COXTENTS.

PAOI

pute sin," explained and illustrated and proved — The doctrine guarded from abuse, and the inifsrepresentations of adversaries rebuked — The u.-^age of the phrase, " bear sin or iniquity," both in the Old and in the New Testament, illustrated and proved — Bushuell's extravagant assertions exposed 169

CHAPTER XII.

I. The effect of Christ's death as it respects God— The classical and New Testament usage of the Tphrase KaraWaTcreiv stated and proved — The classical and New Testament usage of the phrase iXaaKcirdai stated and proved — The Biblical usage of 1DD explained — II. The eflFect of Christ's death as it respects the guilt of sin— The objections of Young answered — The Atonement shown to be the effect and not the cause of God's love for his people — The Orthodox doctrine shown not to involve Trithcism — III. The effect of Christ's death as it respects the sinner himself — The Biblical usage of the terms dyopa^eiv, Xnrpdo), \vrpov explained — This language proved not to imply that the Atonement was a commercial transaction — This usage establishes the Orthodox doctrine — The Scriptures combine various modes of conceiving of the Atonement in the same passages, and thus define the sjiecies as well as the genus of the Atonement as definitely as any one of the Creeds. 179

CHAPTER XIII.

THE TRUE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT PROVED BY THE NATURE OP TUK UNION WHICH THE SCRIPTURES ASSERT SUBSISTS BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE.

The common oVjjcction that vicarious punishment is unjust considered— I. The fact that Christ and his people are one proved from Scripture — The substance of all that is revealed as to the nature of this union stated — II. The fact of this union, as thus proved from Scripture, shown to be consistent only with the Orthodox doctrine of the nature of the Atonement 198

CHAPTER XIV.

I. Justification proved to be a, forensic act of God as Judge, and thus shown to stand in irreconcilable opposition to the Moral Influence Theory as to the nature of the Atonement — The arguments of Dr. John Young answered — II. The view of Justification corresponding to the Governmental Tbeory of the Atonement stated — The true doctrine, viz. that Justification is not mere pardon, that it is a Judicial and not a Sovereign act, and that its ground is the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, stated and proved 212

CHAPTER XV. PAOE

TOE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT, PROVED KKOM THE TEACHINGS OB" SCRIPTURE AS TO THE NATURE AND OFFICE OF FAITH.

That faith includes trust proved— That faith iu or oriC'hrist as the sole condition of salvation is the go.^pel preached by the ApOf;tles, proved — That tliis fact is i)erffctl.v consistent with the Orthodox view of (he Atonement, but utterly irreconcilable with either the Goverumeutal or the Moral Theory, shown 228

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE, AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMRNT, PROVED FROM 'VHAT THE SCRIPTURES TEACH AS TO ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY IN ORDER TO THE SALVATION OF SINNERS.

Different oj)inions as to the ground of the necessity of the Atonement, stated — The bearing of this question upon the question as to the NATURE of the Atonement — The true ground of the necessity of the Atonement stated and proved 234

CHAPTER XVII.

I. That the Atonement of Christ is intrinsically perfect in its lawfultilling and justice-satisfying value — Different views stated and conip:ired — The true doctrine stated and proved — II. That the atoning work of Christ is perfect and complete in the sense of infallibly securing its own application to all of those for whom it was designed— This point proved (a) in opposition to the Komish doctrine of the merit of good works and the efficacy of penance, (b) in ojiposition to the Protestant advocates of an indefinite Atoneuieut 249

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE SATISFACTION RENDERED BY CHRIST PROVED TO EMBRACE HIS AC- TIVE AS WELL AS HIS PASSIVE OBEDIENCE.

Ambiguity of the word Atonement — The term Satisfaction precise and comprehensive — Defect of Symington's book — That the obedience of Christ is inseparable from his suffering, proved — General ol>jcct of chapter to prove that Clirist's obedience as well as his sufferings is vicarious — Threefold relation mankind sustain to law — Obedience is as absolutely necessary in order to the promise of life as is penal suffering in order to the judicial reconciliation — I. The original covenant was accompanied by two sanctions, a promise conditioned on obedience and a penalty — The two alternative theories of justification stated, and the truth of the Calvinistic view proved — 11. The doctrine contended for shown to be expressly stated in Scripture — III. Christ's obedience shown to have been vicarious, from the fact that his person transcended the the claims of law — IV. Only a perfect righteousness can be the ground of justification— V. The objec \on of Piscator, &c., refuted. 248

CHAPTER XIX. PAQi

THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE NATURE OP THE ATONEMENT PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE FAITH OF THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN CHTRCH THROIGH ALL AGES.

I. General statement of the points which the historical evidence to be adduced arc claimed to prove — II. The historical argument of Dr. Young slated and refuted, and the testimony of writers from the time of the Apostles to the present time adduced, together with citations from the Creeds of the Greek, Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches — III. The result of this historical review shown to be that the uniform faith of the entire Church has incluiled the element of expiation, and consequently is inconsistent with either the Moral or the Governmental Theories of the Atonement 265

' CHAPTER XX.

1st. The objection that our doctrine ascribes vindictiveness to God, disproved— Show that both theMoraland the Governmental Theories resolve justice into benevolence — 2d. The objection of Socinusand others, that our doctrine excludes grace, disproved — 3d. The general principle that the demands of the law are personal shown not to impugn tlie truth of our system — 4th. The objection that Christ was but a single person, and his sufferings finite and of short duration, shown not to have weight — 5th. The Church doctrine of " Imputation" shown not to include the absurd figment of the " transfer of moral character" — 6th. The objection that Christ owed obedience for himself, disproved 301

CHAPTER XXI.

THE MORAL INFLUENCE AND THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORIES OP THE / ATONEMENT.

I. Jhe Moral Influence Theory — The object of Christ's death defined by 8ocinus — Statements to the same effect by I5ushnell and Young — The objections to the Moral View are, 1st. The moral influence in question is better effected by the Atonement when conceived of according to the Orthodox view — 2d. The Moral Theory fails, as its advocates confess, to account for the production of tho moral effect — 3d. Inconsistent with true nature and design of a sacrifice — 4th. Inconsistent with tlie ai)]ilicati(jn of the work of Christ to those who died before his advi-iit — oth. This doctrine ia condemned by its historical record — H. The Governmental Theory — History and statement of the doctrine — Its superiority to Moral Theory — Objections to this theory are, 1st. The positive truth of the Governmental Ilyjiothesis better taught by the Orthodox doctrine— 2d. It shows iKj connection between the death of Christ and its acknowledged efiects — 3d. It is foun<led upon a false theor,y of virtue — Jth. It represents the work of Christ as an exhihiilon of principles not truly in exorcist — 5th. Inconsistent with true idea of law, sacrifc'ce, vicarious suffering and ransom, Ac — fith. It necessitates the ccnclurion that the Atoneunut was iudefinite—

FAai 7th. It is connected with the false theory of co-operative justification— 8th. Is contradicted hy the uniform faith of the Church^th. It was not developed from Scripture— lOth, Its only plau:<ible support ifi its relation to the figment of an indefinite Atonement — 11th. Its known Arniinian origin proves its inconsistency with Calvinism 315

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

The question as to the design of the Atonement considered as it is involved in our controversy — 1st. With the Arminians — 2d. With the Calvinistic Uuiversalists 347

CHAPTER II.

The question stated first negatively and then positively under several heads 355

CHAPTER III.

THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE TRUE RELATION WHICH THE PROBLEM AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT SUSTAINS TO THE PROBLEM AS TO ITS DESIGN, EXAMINED.

The view as to the Design of the Atonement entertained by the advocates of. 1st. The Moral View, 2d. The Governmental Theory. 3d. The strictly Mercantile View, 4th. The view of the Lutheran Churches, 5th. The view of the Reformed Churches and of the Arminians... 365

CHAPTER IV.

HISTORY OP OPINION AMONG CALVINISTS UPON THE QUESTION AS TO THE DESIGN OP THE ATONEMENT.

The use of indefinite language by many strict Calvinists explained — The difterent senses in which the phrase " That Christ died for all men" has been used — The doctrine of Amyraldus and its reception by the French Synod — The doctrine of the Marrowmen as to the general reference of the Atonement — The two classes of the recent advocates of an vadefinite Atonement considered 371

CHAPTER V. PAG

THE QDESTIOXS, WHAT WAS THE OPINIOX OP CALVIN AS TO THE DE- SIU.V OF THE ATONEMENT? WHAT IS THE STANDARD OP CALVINISM? AND WHAT IS THE DOCTUINE ON THIS SUBJECT OF THE WESTMINSTER OJNFESSION AND CATECHISM ? CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.

The true position of Calvin on this subject carefully shown — Tho standard of Calvinism shown, and proved to admit only the doctrine of a definite Atonement — The doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechism demonstrated 387

CHAPTER VI.

THE ARGUMENTS STATED UPON WHICH THE REFORMED DOCTRINE AS TO THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT RESTS.

This proved — 1st. From the very nature of the Atonement, since Christ suffered as the personal Substitute of his people, and his work was a satisfaction, and he died with the design of actually saving those for whom he died — 2d. Christ purchased faith and repentance for his people — 3d. He died after half the human race were already dead — 4th. He died in execution of the terms of an eternal covenant with his Father — 5th. His motive was the highest personal love for his own people — 6th. His design declared to be the salvation of " his sheep," the " CI urch," &c. — 7th. Christ's work as High Priest was one work, and proved from the doctrine of election — Sth. Our doctrine harmonizes all the facts 399

CHAPTER VII.

It is objected that our doctrine is inconsistent — 1st. With the general oflFer of the Gospel; answer — 2d. With those passages which declare he suffered for " all," or " the world;" answer — 3d. With those passages which speak of the possibility of those dying for whom Christ died: answer 418

PEEFACE

•In the fall of 1866 the senior Editor of the "Presbyterian Banner," of Pittsburg, asked the author of this book to write a series of articles on the Atonement, The reason assigned was that our views of the great central doctrines of the gospel were frequently misrepresented by many outside of our own communion, and that for the instruction of our own people a restatement of the venerable faith of the Reformed Churches was now very much needed in a form specifically adapted to the circumstances of the present generation. Being in full sympathy with the reasons given, I wrote the articles, which appeared before the public last winter. Those articles furnish about one fourth part of the present volume, which is now sent forth as the best contribution within my power to the vindication of the ancient faith of the Presbj^terian Church, and of the unquestionable and only legitimate interpretation of her standards. While jealously guarding the essential principles of the Calvinistic system, I have designed to repel with all my might alike all those positive heresies which attack it openly, and with even greater solicitude that latitudinarian indifference to exact conceptions and careful statements of doctrine which tends secretly, yet not less certainly, to destroy the truth, and which in the present

age is our chief source of danger. I would pray and la}x)ur that

in gaining breadth we may not lose height, and in gaining peace and love we may not lose purity and truth. With all the very obvious imperfections of the offering, I trust that the condescending Saviour will graciously accept it, and render it an instrument of blessing to his Church, to its ministry, and to those hopeful candidates for its service to whose education my life is devoted. Allegheny Citt, Pa., October, 7, 1867.

The Atonement

PART I.

. THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. CHAPTEK I.

INTRODUCTORY.

THE doctrine of the Atonement is evidently the central and principal element of the doctrine of Justification, which Luther truly affirmed to be the article of a standing or a falling Church. The truth of this aphorism is obvious, both because this truth concerns the foundation upon which our relations to God as our heavenly Father, and consequently all our present life and our future hopes, depend, and also because our conception of this central principle necessarily determines our conception of all the other elements of the entire system of revealed truth; such as the moral attributes of God, the nature of his Moral Government, of Law, Sin and Penalty, the Person of the God-man, the Person and Office of the Holy Spirit, the Office of Faith, and hence the entire character of our religious experience.

In contradiction of the assertion of Bushnell, and 2 . 13

the vague impression of many others, that no consistent view as to the nature of Christ's redemptive work has characterized the faith of the Church in all ages, I expect to show in the following chapters that, although the Church did not attain to a definite and complete scientific statement of the Doctrine of Redemption before the period of the Socinian controversy in the early part of the seventeenth century, it is nevertheless a fact that the whole Church, in its historical divisions from the a})ostolic age, and each branch of it in exact proportion to its general orthodoxy, has held essentially but one opinion on this subject. On the subject of the nature and objective reference of the redemptive work of Christ there was no controversy between the Reformers and the Church of Rome. All the great national churches of both the Lutheran and Reformed families, and all the authoritative Church creeds, are here, at the very heart of the gospel, at one. Even all evangelical Arminians, such as Arminius himself, John Wesley, and Richard Watson, by a happy sacrifice of logic, are on this vital question at one with Calvinists, and opposed to the more consistent Pelagianizing Arminians.

On the other hand, the lesson of history is none the less clear, that Rationalism, in all its forms and degrees, tends to pervert the testimony of Scripture as to the nature of Redemption, and that erroneous views on this subject are invariably connected, as cause or effect, with erroneous views on every other main principle of the gospel. Thus Socinian views as to the Person of Christ have always been accom])anicd with corresponding views as to the nature of his w )rk. The same is true precisely of high Arianism, and again of the semi-pantheistic

Monism of Sclileiermachor and the American Mercersberg tlieolotjcy. Arminianism is distinguislied by its 'v'culiar soteriology, corresponding accurately to its anthropology. Calvinistic advocates of general redemption, whether of the French, English, or American schools, have always been constrained to modify to a corresponding extent the common doctrine of all the Reformers, and of all the Church creeds, as to the nature of Redemption and of Justification. The Pelagianizing speculations of the New England theologians — as to the nature of sin and of virtue, the extent of man's moral ruin in the fall, the necessity and nature of Eifectual Calling and Regeneration — have in all their varying phases been accompanied with corresponding theories of the Atonement, so called. And every passing school of German Rationalists, old or new, and the ncoplatonizing Rationalists of the Broad Church school in England and America, are characterized by the uniformity of purpose with which in various methods they seek to make void the teaching of Scripture on this vital theme.

Thus history puts it beyond question that a tendency to deny, or even to abate or to modify, the full truth on this subject, is always symptomatic of a tendency toward a total disintegration of the system of revealed truth. And all the indications of the present time also warn us that the whole Church is just now, in a pre-eminent degree, exposed to this very influence from many directions. From the recent amazing advancement of the physical sciences, and the corresponding development of the practical arts, and the wide extension of the secular interests and activities of the masses of mankind, and doubtless from many other causes unknown, the spirit of modern

philosophy, whether intuitional or sensational, is bey on a precedent naturalistic — that is, disposed to deny the supernatural as impossible, or to ignore it as unknowable. The subtle spirit of this mode of thought penetrates every sphere of mental activity, is diffused through every species of literature, and is far more influential over the speculations of even truly religious minds than many are aware of It is constantly, by an unfelt pressure, tending to lead the theologian away from the simplicity of the gospel. This is manifested in many essays at a rational explanation of the mysteries of revelation in conformity with the principles of natural reason and the analogies of human experiences. Doctrines are first formed to satisfy rational views of what they ought to be, and then a reference is made to the Bible to elicit inspired confirmation of truths otherwise derived.

The t\vo great doctrines just at present most generally brought into question, and which have suffered most at the hands of liationalistic criticism, are those concerning the nature and extent of Biblical Inspiration, and the nature of the redemptive work of Christ. These naturally stand or fall together. For if the inspiration of the Scriptures is plenary, then the Church doctrine as to the nature of Redemption remains impregnable. But if the authority of the Scriptures may be abated, the way is open, of course, in due proportion, to thecries of Redemption adjusted to the ^' finer feelings," the "moral intuitions," and tne administrative experiences of mankind. Thus we have in Broad Church literature — so widely circulated in the writings of Jowett, Maurice, Stanley, Dr. John Young of Edinburgh, and the sermons of Robertson, and the late elaborate treatise on '^ Vicarious Sacrifice/' of Buslmell, and else vhcre — a republication in new forms of that which is in essence nothin<^ else than the old Socinian heresy on the Atonement. A prominent Methodist^ minister, the Kev. Dr. Steele, as quoted by the Watchman and RcJIector, declares, concerning- that great evangelical denomination, that the old view that Christ died to satisfy the justice of God is undoubtedly disappearing among them, and that the "moral infiuence," or Socinian view, is generally taking its place. And it is notorious that the hybrid Governmental Atonement theory — orthodox in whatever it affirms and Socinian in all it denies — has for years been the accepted doctrine of what is called the New England theology, and of a large class of theologians in England.

There are three points to which I wish to direct the attention of the reader in this introductory chapter.

1. The first is the fact, too apt to be overlooked by eager controversialists, that all error, especially all effective and therefore dangerous error, is partial truth. The human mind was formed for truth, and so constituted that only truth can exert permanent influence upon it. But the truth revealed in the Scriptures is so many-sided in its aspects, and ..o vast in its relations, and our habits of thought because of sin are so one-sided and narrow, that as a general fact, the mind of any Church in any single age fails to take in practically and sharj)ly more than one side of a truth at a time, while other aspects and relations are either denied or neglected. A habit of unduly exalting any subordinate view of the tiuth at the expense of that Avhich is more important, or of overlooking, on the other hand, some secondary aspect of it

altogether, is certain after a time to lead to a reactionary tendency, in which that which has been too much exalted shall be brought low, and that which has been abased shall be exalted. Thisjprinciple is abundantly illustrated througliout the entire history of theological speculation; as in the ever-repeated oscillations between the extremes of Sabellianism and Tritheism as to the Trinity, of Eutychianism and Nestorianism as to the Person of Christ, and in the history of speculations on the doctrine of Redemption. Every prominent heresy as to tlie nature of the Atonement, as the reader will iind carefully acknowledged and defined in the following work, embraces and emphasizes on its positive side an important truth. The power, and hence the danger, of the heresy resides in that fact. But on the other hand, it is a heresy, and hence an evil to be resisted unto death, because it either puts a subordinate principle into the place of that which is central and fundamental, or because it puts one side of the truth for the whole, denying or ignoring all besides the fractional truth presented. It is plainly the policy as well as the duty of the defenders of the whole truth, not only to acknowledge the truth held on the side of their opponents, but to vindicate the rights of the perfect system as a whole, by demonstrating the true position and relation of the partial truth admitted in the larger system of truth denied. By these means we double the defences of orthodoxy, by bringing into contribution all that is true, and therefore all that is of force, in the apologies of error.

2. The second point is, that systems of divinity and definite views of doctrine are not a matter of choice, but of absolute necessity to the Church, as long as the Bible

is read with interest. This unquestionable nccessiiy ariscs from the logical constitution of the human mind to wliich the Christian revelation has been addressed, and from the self-consistent reason of that infinite mind from which the revelation lias originated. That all trutli is one in God and in man is an invincil)le axiom. The man who intelligently denies this is ripe for atheism. The human mind — that' of the individual and that of every community — ever strives to introduce unity into the whole mass of its knowledge. God's plans, purposes, administrations — whether through nature or from above nature, and his revelations, whether history or prophecy, whether doctrine, precept or promise — must all constitute one system, and hence, all their parts must sustain a consistent relation to one another. They cannot be conceived of truly unless they are conceived of as they are being accurately defined, and understood in their mutual relations.

At present there are two absurdly inconsistent attacks, originating in rationalistic sources, directed against that system of trutli which the Christian Church has discerned in the inspired Scriptures. The first attack is made upon the plea that everything contained in a supernatural revelation — being a part of a great selfcontained system of truth — must be forthwith explained and set forth, in all its relations, in the light of the human reason. Some, arguing from analogy, and others appealing to their own elementary intuitions and feelings, determine a priori what God can do and say, and therefore what God does do and say, thus using the materials of revelation in subordination to the law-o'ivin": power of reason. The whole class of

errorists Avith whom we liave to do, draw their doctrine ill the first instance from rational principles, and they appeal to Scripture only to show that it may be quoted in at least apparent conformity with what has been previously discovered and proved on other grounds. The second attack appears in the form of a protest against definite views of doctrine, and covers its real denial of the fundamental articles of the Christian faith under vague generalities. Coleridge, in his Aids to Reflection,* denies that the Scriptures reveal anything to us of " the efficient cause and condition of redemption," except the bare fact that Christ has achieved it, and affirms that all that is revealed to us concerns the ^^ effects of redemption in and for the redeemed" themselves. Hence a large class of theologians in England, and a smaller but growing one in America, are continually pleading for the bare implicit recognition of the Atonement as a fact, and protesting against all theories of the Atonement whatsoever; that is, against all definite views upon the subject.f

This is at once very absurd and very dangerous, and none the less dangerous because of its absurdity. The present, above all other periods of human history, is intolerant cf all vague, undetermined and loosely-held views. Sharp, clearly-defined logic and earnest faith will hold the field at the last. Besides, these very men necessarily violate their own principle, showing that

* Aphorisms on Si)iritual Religion Indeed, Comment on Apliorisra 19.

f See Tracts for Priests and People, Tract III., The Atonement as a Fact and as a Theory. By the Rev. Francis Garden, Sub-dean of Her Majesty's Chapel Royal.

practically it serves only as a cover und*r which their hostility to the truth is disguised. It is plain enouj^h that Coleridge held and taught, under all the cloud of his mysterious language, the old, meagre and oft-discarded Moral Theory of the Atonement. The Rev. Suhdean Garden, in the Tracts for Priests and I*eople, makes it very plain that while his professed object is to maintain the Atonement as a fact, while all human theories as to its nature are alike rejected, his real interest in the matter is to reject the principle which has been ahvays professed by the Church in all its branches, that the direct and central design and eflfect of Christ's death was to propitiate the principle of justice in the divine natnre. The same is true in degree also in the advocates of the Governmental theory. Its positions are possible only when vaguely and generally stated. When a strict account is asked as to what is meant by "a substitute for a penalty,'' or as to the connection between the non-penal sufferings of an innocent person and the forgiveness of the unpunished sins of the guilty subjects of divine government, no answer is made, and we venture to assert that upon their "^heory no answer is possible.

In answer to both of these pleas of Rationalism, we affirm that Christian doctrine has its ground in the inspired Scriptures alone. These contain the system of divine truth as a whole, as well as all the separate elements of that system. The true system of Redemj^tion is in the Scriptures, inseparable from the facts, just as the true theory of astronomy has been from the creation with the stars in the sky, whether mankind read them aright or not. The theologian, like the astronomer, is nothing more than the interpreter, wdio observes the

facts, -who gradually reads the system in the facts, and uho teaches to others precisely what he has read in the book, neither more nor less. We believe that what is called the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement is as certainly and as demonstrably taught in the Scriptures as it is in any or in all the creeds of the Reformed Churches. The teachings of the Holy Scriptures, with respect to the precise nature of the Atonement, when brought together, are, as I show at the close of Chapter XII., as definite as any statement which can possibly be constructed in the use of human speech. Let us reverently remember the awful woe which the Holy Ghost denounces upon him who either " shall add anything unto " or ^' shall take away^^ aught from that which God has revealed in the Scriptures. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. It is certainly as impious, and perhaps more foolish, to refuse to see clearly what God has revealed clearly, as it is to attempt to understand in detail great undefined facts which God has seen fit to leave upon the verge of our horizon. We hear of some dapper preachers who claim that the age has outgrown doctrine. They have advanced around the circle to the place from which they started, and hope they are ready again to enter the kingdom of heaven like little children, as far as ignorance is concerned. Let it be rememljcred that systemaiic theology has its essence simply in clear thinking and clear speaking on the subject of that religion w^hich is revealed in the Scriptures. A man can outgrow systematic theology, therefore, either by ceasing to be clear-headed, or by ceasing to be religious, and in no other way. I suppose some escapf in their haste by both ways at once.

3. In tlie third place, as to the conditions of the argument, I have to make three preliminary remarks.

(1.) I insist that, as the Gospel is wholly a matter of divine revelation, the answer to the question, Wliat did Christ do on earth in order to reconcile us to God? be sought exclusively in a full and fair induction from all the Scriptures teach upon the subject. From a survey of all the matter revealed on the subject, what, in the judgment of a mind unprejudiced by theories, did the sacred writers intend us to believe? The result of such an examination, unmodified by philosophy or secular analogies, is alone, we insist, the true doctrine of the redemptive work of Christ.

(2.) Reasonable objections against the evidences by which a doctrine is established have force, and should be duly considered. But rational objections to any principle fairly established by the language of Scripture have no force whatever, unless they amount to a pa//ja6^e corvtradiciion to other principles certainly known. And whenever this can be shown, the reasonable inference is, not that the teachings of Scripture are to be modified in conformity thereto, but that the Scriptures themselves are to be rejected as false. Nothing is more senseless than the attempt to modify the results of the inspiration of Jehovah in conformity with human reason.

(3.) The force of the argument in behalf of this or any other doctrine does not lie in special words or passages, nor in the several arguments regarded separately. These are like the sticks of the bundle which the boy in the fable broke one by one with ease. The overwhelming dem3nstratIon lies in the fact that all Scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments, when

naturally interpreted, is as if the doctrine was true. The number and variety of converging lines are absolutely inconsistent with doubt as to the meaning intended. Our opponents are in the habit of demanding that we should show that each text in detail not only may, but absolutely mustj teach the doctrine we hold, and none other. In these tactics they have been greatly excelled by the more consistent Socinians, who, by a like process, have satisfied themselves that Christ's 2:)roper divinity is not taught in Scripture.

I propose, then,

Fird. To state the Church doctrine on this subject, defining all the points involved, and the terms used in the definitions.

Seco7id. To present a summary of the several departments of the scriptural evidence by which the doctrine is established.

Third. To prove that the true Church has always, from the days of the apostles to the present, in all its branches, been in essential agreement as to the essential elements of the doctrine, as taught at large in the confessions of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches.

Fourth. To state and answer the principal objections made to the doctrine.

Fifth. To state, compare and expose the fallacy of the several erroneous views held in opposition to the truth.

Sixth. To state and prove the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches as to the design of the Atonement with respect to its objects.

CHAPTER II.

IT may elucidate the statement of the points involved in the orthodox doctrine as to the nature of Christ's Redemptive Work, which I propose to give in this chapter, if we first take a step backward, and attempt to estimate those conditions which made that work necessary. It is assumed that the end to be attained was to reconcile God and man. What, then, were the difficulties to be surmounted? What parties are to be affected by the introduction of such a provision into the administration of the divine government? And how do they severally stand in relation to it?

1. There is God. It is evident that whatever the nature of God demands, as the condition of this reconciliation, must be provided. And it is no less evident that the conditions, rendered necessary by God's nature, must take precedence of all others; and, indeed, since all created natures and relations are contingent upon God's nature, so all other conditions of redemption whatsoever must be contingent upon the demands of his nature. N^w we expect to show (1) that the Scriptures teach that one of the attributes of the divine essence is abhorrence of sin for its intrinsic sinfulness, both in its aspect as pollution and in its a>^|M^rl iis r/uUf. It is of the

essence of his moral perfection lo forbid it and punish it. (2.) That God has, from the fii-st enunciation of his law to Adam, pledged liis incorruptible truth that " the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

2. There is the sinner himself in a certain legal relation, and with a certain moral disposition as it respects God.

(1.) As to his legal relations, the Scriptures clearly teach that, at his creation, he was put under the equitable Covenant of Works for a certain probationary period. This just constitution provided (a) everlasting well-being on condition of perfect obedience, and (6) everlasting ill-being on condition of disobedience. Now, although under that covenant man failed, it is evident that, nevertheless, both of these conditions must be maintained in their integrity. To relax them would be to violate the word of God, to dishonour his law, and to render his promises and his threatenings alike unworthy of respect. The penalty, when once incurred, can be preserved inviolate only by being executed. The promise of everlasting well-being can be truthfully granted only when the condition of perfect obedience has been fulfilled. Suffering a righteous penalty entitles no criminal to a reward; and to offer eternal blessedness to such, on terms denied to unfallen Adam and to all angels, would be placing a premium on sin.

(2.) As to man's moral disposition toward God, Scripture and experience teach that it is a condition alike of conscious guilt and of alienation, (a) It is a condition of conscious guilt. Conscience is an indestructible element of human nature. It is God's incorruptible witness in the soul, in the midst of all its moral corruption,

judging of sin as he jiulges of it. It is armed witli the vindicatory emotion of remorse, which demands expiation, and which never can be pacified by mere ])ardon. Pardon allays fear; sanctification allays selfabhorrence; but only expiation can appease remorse. (b) Man's condition involves a disposition of fear, distrust, sullen alienation as respects God. This might all be removed by an exertion of new creative power. But God works upon man in consistency with his nature as a rational and free agent. Such an exhibition of God's character and disposition toward man must be made, therefore, as shall tend, according to the laws of man's moral and emotional nature, to subdue his alienation and to dissipate his distrust.

3. There is the moral universe, embraced in one general system of divine government. If sin is punished in one province, government is strengthened throughout the empire. On the other hand, if law is relaxed and sin pardoned by mere sovereign prerogative in any one province, the government is just so far forth dishonoured and weakened throughout all provinces and for all time. Sinful men, therefore, cannot properly be reconciled to God until after provision has been made to demonstrate to all the subjects of God's government his immutable determination to punish sin in all cases without exception.

The orthodox doctrine provides exhaustively for satisfying all these conditions of redemption at once, by the one act of the Lord Jesus, in vicariously suffering the penalty of the broken law as the Substitute of his people. His motive was infinite love. The precise thing he did was to suffer the penalty of the law as the substitute of his people. His direct intention was to satisfy justice in tlieir behalf, and thus secure, on legal terms, their salvation. In doing this, he also necessarily satisiied the natural demand of the sinner's conscience for expiation, and subdued his sullen alienation, and removed his distrust of God, by the supreme exhibition of divine love made on the cross. At the same time, and by the same means, he gave to the whole moral universe the highest conceivable demonstration of God's inexorable determination to punish all sin, just because he did so punish it even in the person of his Son. The Socinian, or Moral Influence Theory, supposes that the sole design and effect of Christ's sufferings v/as to subdue the wicked alienation of man by an exhibition of selfsacrificing love. It is evident that this view is not only partial and inverted, making the reconciliation of man to God everything, and the reconciliation of God to man nothing, but it is also absurd when detached from the central idea of expiation. Christ's sufferings subdue the alienation of man because they exhibit divine love. They exhibit divine love, because they were endured as the means necessary to remove obstacles otherwise insuperable even by God to the exercise of favour to sinful men. A tragedy gotten up for the transparent purpose of affecting our feelings, having no inherent principle or necessity in itself, would disgust rather than conciliate enmity.

The Governmental Theory, however its principles may be disguised by vague and general statements, essentially involves the assumption (1) that justice is only a mode of benevolence; (2) that the penalty was not executed on Christ; that his sufferings were not necessary to satisfy the rigour of divine justice; that, ou

tlio contrary, he suffered a substitute for the penalt} , as an example of pnnisliment to counteract in the moral univei-sc, by exhibiting God's determination to punish sin, the evil effects that would otherwise ensue upon its pardon. It is even more evident than in the case of the Socinian Theory that this view is not only partial and invert^, putting the claims of the moral universe before those of God, but absurd, also, when detached from the central idea of expiation, which it was invented to supersede. For how can his sufferings be an example of punishment unless Christ really suffered the penalty of the law? How can they demonstrate God's determination to punish sin unless sin was in very deed punished therein? "^

The orthodox doctrine as to Redemption involves the following points.

1. As to its 3fotive. This was the amazino: love of God to his own people, determining him, in perfect consistency with his truth and justice, to assume himself, in the person of his Son, the responsibility of bearing the penalty and satisfying justice. The same identical essence and attributes are common to the Father and the Son, The justice demanding satisfaction, and the love prompting to the self-assumption of the penalty, are co-existent states of divine feeling and purpose.

2. As to- its Nature. (1.) Christ assumed the lawplace of his people. He owed no personal obedience, and he had sovereign right over his own life to dispose of it as he willed. Prompted by the infinite love common to the Father and himself, he voluntarily assumed all of our legal responsibilities. (2.) He obeyed and Buffered as our Substitute, HLs sufferings were vicarious.

By his obedience and sufferings he discharged all our obligations to the divine law, both in its federal and penal relations. His sufferings cancelled the claims of penal justice, and his obedience merited the rewards of the original covenant of life. (3.) While there was, of course, no transfer of moral character, he assumed the guilt (just obligation to punishment) of our sins. All their shame and pollution remain ours, while all their guUt (penal obligation) was willingly assumed by, and imputed to him — i. c, charged to his account. (4.) He did not render a pecuniary satisfaction, and therefore did not suffer the same degree nor duration, nor in all respects the same kind of sufferings, which the law would have inflicted on the sinner in person. But he did suffer the very i^enalty of the law. That is, sin was punished in him in strict rigour of justice. His sufferings were no substitute for a penalty, but those very penal evils which rigorous justice demanded of his exalte^l person Avhen he stood in our place, as a full equivalent for all that was demanded of us. The substitution of a divine for a human victim necessarily involved a change in the quality, though none whatever in the legal relations, of the suffering. (5.) He did not, of course, suffer in his divine nature. But because of the infinite dignity of his person, his finite sufferings constitute an absolutely perfect satisfaction, sufficient to expiate the sins of all men.

3. As to its Effect. (1.) It produced no change in God, any more than do acts of creation and providence. The efficient purpose existed in the divine mind from eternity. He acted upon it, as if accoui2^1ished from the fall of Adam. Tl^e infuijte justice and the infinite loyo

exercised in the sacrifice of Christ were in the divine mind from tlie bcfi:innin<ii:. The effect of the satisfaction was to render possible the concurrent exercise of tlie justice and the love in the treatment of the same sinful persons. (2.) It expiated the guilt of sin. It fulfilled tlu; demands of law. It propitiated justice. It reconciled us to God. (3.) It actually secures our salvation, and does not simply put us in a salvable state. According to the terms of the Covenant of Grace, the impetration of redemption by Christ is infallibly connected with its application by the Holy Ghost. (4.) Not being the payment of a pecuniary debt, which ij^so facto liberates, but a vicarious penal satisfaction, it remains, as far as we are concerned, as a matter of right, in the hands of God to grant its benefits to whom he pleases, when and on whatsoever terms he pleases. His granting it in any case is an act of sovereign grace. But since Christ acted by covenant, he has acquired by his performance of the stipulated conditions a strictly legal title to the salvation of all for whom he acted. As between God and the Mediator, the claim in right is perfect. As between God and the Mediator and sinful man, it is all free and amazing grace. (5.) Being the actual execution in strict rigour of justice of the unrelaxed penalty of the law in the person of the God-man, it is the most impressive exhibition to the moral universe conceivable of God's inexorable determination to punish all sin. (6.) Being an exhibition of amazing love — of the costliest self-sacrifice, overcoming obstacles otherwise insuperable to the well-being of its objects — it effects what only such love can; it melts the hearts, subdues the rebellion, and dissipates the fears of sinful men.

CHAPTER III.

DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND SPECIFICAIION OF THE PRINCIPAL POINTS INVOLVED IN THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.

EVERY science has its tecnnical terms, and much depends, of course, upon tlieir being accurately understood and consistently used. There is, moreover, a constant tendency in the language of theology — as is the case with all living human speech — to change, to admit new terms, to drop old ones, and to modify the sense of others. Advocates of different schools of theological opinions use common terms in different senses, and one main cause of the futility of theolo^i'ical controversy, and of the irritation with which it is accompanied, is due to the fact that they so inadequately understand each other's speech. In order, therefore, to establisli a common understanding with my readers, I shall in this chapter define the sense in which certain terms are used in the thcoloo^ical writino;s of the Reformed Churches, and then enum(Tate several points involved in the statement of the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement before given, to which I desire the attention of my readers directed throughout the subsequent discussion of that scriptural evidence by which they are established.

I. Atonement. This word has been generally used

in late years, both in England and in this country, to express the specific thing which Christ wrought in order to our salvation. The old term in use ever since the days of Anselm, and habitually used by all the lieformers in all the creeds and great classical theological writings of the seventeenth century, both Lutheran and Reformed, was Satisfaction. We prefer the old term to the new one for the following reasons.

(1.) The word Atonement is ambiguous. It is used many times in the Old Testament to translate the Hebrew worxl "i£3D — to cover by making expiation. It appears but once in our English New Testament, and there (Rom. v. 11) as the equivalent of the Greek word xarallayijj reconciliation. Its etymology is not known, and is claimed by many to be at-one-ment. This the Socinians regard as the full force of the word, and as lihus fully expressing the exact nature of Christ's work — that is, a reconciliation of God and man. Thus the word is sometimes understood to mean reconciliation, and sometimes that sin-expiating, God-propitiating work by which reconciliation was effected. When we say that we have "received the atonement," we mean that we have been reconciled to God. But when it is said that Christ, after the analogy of the ancient sacrifices, has "made an atonement for us,'' it means that he has done that which secures our reconciliation; i. e., has satisfied all the demands of law upon which the favour and fellowship of God were suspended. On the other hand, the word Satisfaction is not ambiguous. It always means precisely that which Christ did in order to save his peol^le, as that work stands related to the nature of God and to his law.

(2.) The word Atonement, moreover, is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares that Christ did in order to satisfy all the demands of God's law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It represents only that satisfaction which Christ rendered to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty due to our sins, but it does not include that satisfaction which Christ rendered in his vicarious obedience to tlie law as a covenant of everlasting well-being. The word Satisfaction naturally includes both of these, while the use of the word Atonement to express the whole of Christ's work has naturally led to confused and defective views as to the nature of that work.

The word Satisfaction is neither ambiguous nor defective. The Reformed Churches mean by its use (1) that Christ fully satisfied all that the justice and law oi God required, on the part of mankind, as the condition of their being admitted to divine favour and eternal happiness. (2.) As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both preceptive and penal — the condition of life being "do this and live," while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is, "the soul that sinneth it shall die" — it follows that any work which shall fully satisfy the demands of the divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin.*

II. Tke Difference between a penal and a pecuniary satisfaction. These differ precisely as do crime and debt, things and persons, and therefore the distinction is both * Dr. Charles Hodge.

obvious and important. Many, who either are incapable of understanding the question, are ignorant of its history, or who are unscrupulous as to the manner in which they conduct controversy, are continually charging our doctrine with the folly of representing the sacrifice of Christ as a purely commercial transaction, in which so much was given for so much, and in which God was in such a sense recompensed for his favours to us that however much gratitude we may owe to Christ, we owe on this behalf none to God. Long ago the doctrine of the Reformed Churches was unanswerably vindicated from such puerile charges by all its most authoritative expounders. " Here the twofold solution, concerning which jurists treat, should be accurately distinguished. The one, w^hich ipso facto liberates the debtor or criminal because that very thing which was owed is paid, whether it was done by the debtor or by another in his name. The other, which ipso facto does riot liberate, since not at all the very thing which was owed, but an equivalent, is paid, Avhich, although it does not thoroughly and ipso facto discharge the obligation, yet having been accepted — since it might be refused — is regarded as a satisfaction. This distinction holds between a pecuniary and a penal indebtedness. For in a pecuniary debt the payment of the thing owed ipso facto liberates the debtor from all obligations whatsoever, because here the point is not who pays, but what is paid. Hence the creditor, the payment being accepted, is never said to extend toward the debtor any indulgence or remission, because he has received all that was owed him. But the case is different with respect to a penal debt, because in this case the obligation respects the person as well as the thing; the demand is upon the

person icho pays as well as the tiling paid; i. e., that the penalty should be suffered by the person sinning; for aif the law demands personal and proper obedience, so it exacts personal enduring of the penalty. Therefore, in order that a criminal should be absolved — a vicarioas satisfaction being rendered by another hand — it is necessary that there should intervene a sovereign act of the supreme law-giver, which, with respect to the law, is called relaxation, and with respect to the debtor is called remission, because the personal endurance of the penalty is remitted, and a vicarious endurance of it is accepted in its stead. Hence it clearly appears that in this work (of Redemption) remission and satisfaction are perfectly consistent with each other, because there is satisfaction in the endurance of the punishment which Christ bore, and there is remission in the acceptance of a vicarious victim. The satisfaction respects Christ, from whom God demanded the very same punishment, as to kind of punishment, though not as to the degree nor as to the nature of the sufferings which the law denounced upon us. The remission respects believers, to whom God remits the personal, while he admits the vicarious, punishment. And thus appears the admirable reconciliation of justice and mercy — -justice which executes itself upon the sin, and mercy which is exercised towards the sinner. Satisfaction is rendered to the justice of God by the Sponsor, and remission is granted to us by God.'' *

Hence pecuniary satisfaction differs from penal thus:

(a.) In debt, the demand terminates upon the thing due.

In crime, the legal demand for punishment is upon the

person of the criminal. (6.) In debt, the demand is for

* Tunttin, Jjotus XIV. Quaehlio 10, lthe precise thing due — the exact quid pro quo, and nothing else. In crime, tlie demand is for that kind, degree and duration of suffering which the law — ^. e., absolute and omniscient justice — demands in each specific case, the person suffering and the sin to be expiated both being considered, (c.) In debt, the payment of the thing due, by whomsoever it may be made, {j)so facto liberates the debtor, and instantly extinguishes all the claims of the creditor, and his release of the delator is no matter of grace. In crime, a vicarious suffering of the penalty is admissible only at the absolute discretion of the sovereign; remission is a matter of grace; the rights acquired by the vicarious endurance of penalty all accrue to the sponsor; and the claims of law upon the sinner are not ij)so facto dissolved by such a satisfaction, but remission accrues to the designed beneficiaries only at such times and on such conditions as have been determined by the will of the sovereign, or agreed upon between the sovereign and the sponsor.

3. The significance of the term Penalty, and the distinction between Calamities, Chastisements and Penal Evils. Calamities are sufferings viewed without any reference to a design or purpose in their infliction— that is, suffering considered simply as suffering. Chastisements are sufferings viewed as designed for the improvement of those who experience them. When viewed as designed to satisfy the claims of justice and law, they are Penal Evils. The sufferings of Christ were not mere objectless, characterless calamities. They could not have been chastisements designed for his personal improvement. They must therefore have been penal inflictions vicariously endunnl.* J *Dr. Charles Hodge.

Penalty is suffering exacted by the supreme lawmaking power of the breakers of law. The penalty in case of any person and in view of any crime is precisely that kind, degree and duration of suffering which the supreme law-making power demands of that person under those conditions for that crime. Human law is necessarily generalized in an average adaptation to classes. But divine law with infinite accuracy adapts itself to the absolute rights of each individual case of crune and of punishment, the penalty in each case fulfilling all righteousness, both as respects the person l^unished and the crime for which it is inflicted. We say that Christ suffered the very penalty of the law, not because he suffered in the least the same kind, much less the same degree, of suffering as was penally due those for whom he acted, because that is not at all necessary to the idea of penalty. But we say that he suffered the very penalty of the law, because he suffered in our stead; our sins were punished in strict rigour of justice in him; the penal demands of the law upon his people were extinguished, because his sufferings sustained precisely tlie same legal relations that our sufferings in person would have done; and because he suffered precisely that kind, degree and duration of suffering that absolute justice demanded of his divine person, when found federally responsible for the guilt of all the sins of the elect. We believe that while the sufferer is substituted, the {penalty as penalty, though never as suffering, is identical. AVe are willing to call it in accommodation a "substituted penalty," though we believe the phrase inaccurate. But tlic phrase insisted upon by the advocates of the Governmental Atonement Theorj^ — viz., "a substitute for a

penalty" — wc believe to be absurd. Sin is either punished or not punished. The penalty is either executed or n^- niitted. Justice is either exercised or relaxed. Tlicre can be no manifestation of i>enal righteousness without an exercise of penal justice.

4. The meaning of tlie words SuRSTiTUTiON and Vicarious. These terms are admitted in a loose sense even by Socinians, and are paraded by Young, Maurice and Jowctt, and very much in the same loose, indifferent sense by Barnes and the advocates of the Governmental Atonement Theory generally. When these parties say that Christ was substituted for us and his sufferings are vicarious, they mean nothing more than that he suffered in our behalf, for our benefit. We hold, on the other hand, that Christ was in a strict and exact sense the substitute of his people; i. 6., by divine appointment, and of his own free will, he assumed all our legal responsibilities and thus assumed our law-place, binding himself to do in our stead all that the law demanded of him when he suffered the penalty due us, and rendered the obedience upon which our well-being was made to depend. Vicarious sufferings and obedience are penal inflictions, and act^ of obedience to law which are rendered in our place or stead {vice), as well as in our behalf by our substitute. An alien goes to the army in the place of a drafted subject. He is the substitute of the man in whose place he goes. His labours, ins dangers, his wounds and his death are vicarious.

5. Tlie distinction between the terms Expiation and Propitiation. Both these words represent the same Greek word, DAaxeaOai. When construed, as it is constantly in the classics, with zbv Seov or zoh^ Oeou^j it

means to propitiate by sacrificial expiation. In the New Testament it is construed with rc (i/ior/c,Heb. ii. 17, and is properly translated to expiate. Expiation removes the reatus or guilt of sin. Meatus is that obligation to suffer the penalty which is inherent in sin. Sanctification alone removes the pollution of sin. Propitiation removes the judicial displeasure of God. Expiation respects the bearing or effect which Satisfaction has upon sin or upon the sinner. Propitiation has respect to the bearing or effect which Satisfaction has upon God. Sacrificial expiation among heathens, Jews and Christians has always been regarded as a truepfcna vicaria; it is of the genus penalty; its specific difference is vicariousness. Propitiation, as a theological term, means that peculiar method of rendering placable w hich affects the heart of a Deity, who at the same time hates the sin and is determined to punish it, yet loves the sinner; and which proceeds by means of expiation, or the vicarious suffering of the penalty by a substituted victim.

6. Impetration and Application. Arminians and the Calvinistic advocates of a general Atonement are constantly insisting upon the distinction between the Impeteation and the xVpplication of salvation by Christ. By Impetration they mean the piu*chase, or meritorious procurement by sacrifice, of all of those objective conditions of salvation which are offered to all men in the gospel; that is, salvation made available on the condition of faith. By Application they mean the actual application of that salvation to individuals upon faith. The Impetration they hold to be geneml and indefinite; tlie Ap})lication they believe to be personal, definite and limited to believers. The Reformed Churches, on the

other hand, tcacli that while the impetration of salvation is both lo<^iailly and chronologically distinguisha1)le from its application, nevertheless in the eternal and immutable design of God the impetration is personal and definite, and includes certainly and meritoriously the subsequent application to the persons intended ; for "to ALL /or whom Christ hath purchased redemption he doth cciiainly and effectually apply and communicate the sameJ^

7. Redemption and Atonement. The modern advocates of a general Atonement distinguish between the words Redemption and Atonement after this manner : Atonement they confine to the impetration of the objective conditions of salvation, which they maintain is general and indefinite. Redemption they use in a wider sense as including the actual personal application in addition to the general and all-sufficient impetration. Hence, wJiile they speak of a general Atonement, they deny of course that there is a general Redemption. It must be carefully noted, however, that this distinction was not marked by this usage of the terms Atonement and Redemption by any of the controversialists, on either side of the question, during the seventeenth century, when the authoritative standards of the Reformed Churches were written. Baxter used the word Redemption as equivalent to Atonement in his work entitled " Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ." So also the Arminian Dr. Isaac Barrow, in his sermons entitled "The Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and Explained." In the Westminster Confession, let it be remembered, the word Redemption is used in tlie sense of

Atonement, or the sacrificial purchase of salvation for tliosc for Avhom it was intended.*

Tliere is, however, unquestionably a distinction to be carefully observed between these words in their biblical usage. The precise biblical sense of Atonement (oni):) — ilaapLO^) is the expiation of sin by means of a pccna vicaria in order to the propitiation of God. The biblical usage with respect to Redemption (aTzoXoTpwatr^ &c.,) is more comprehensive and less definite. It signifies deliverance from loss or from ruin by the payment for us of a ransom by our Substitute. Hence it may signify the act of our Substitute in paying that ransom. Or it may be used to ex})ress the completed deliverance itself, the consummation of which is of course future. To say that " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us'^ (Gral. iii. 13), is precisely equivalent to saying that he lias made atonement for us. But when we speak of our "redemption drawing nigh'' (Luke xxi. 28), of "the redemption of the purchased possession" (Eph. i. 14), of "the redemption of our body" (Rom. viii. 23), or of "the day of redemption" (Eph. iv. 30), it is plain that the word signifies the deliverance of our souls and bodies, and the attainment for us of a heavenly inheritance by means of the payment of a ransom for us by our Lord — a deliverance which, although commenced now, will be consummated at a future day. Redemption being deliverance by means of the substitution of a ransom, it follows that, althougii the ransom can only be paid to God, and to him only as

*See Dr. Cunningham's Historical Theology, vol. ii., p. 327, and Dr. Henry B. Smith, in his edition of Hagenbach, vol. ii., pp. 356, 357.

the moral Governor of the universe, we may still be said to be redeemed from all that we are delivered from by means of the ransom })aid in the saerifiee of Christ. Tims we are said to be redeemed from our " vain conversation" (1 Pet. i. 18), ''from death'' (Hosea xiii. 14), "from the devil" (Col. ii. 15; Ileb. ii. 14), from ''all iniquity" (Titus ii. 14), and "from the curse of the law" (Gal. iii. 13, and iv. 5), while it is of course not meant that the ransom is paid to the devil, or to sin, or to death, or to the law. It is simply absurd to claim that these different representations are inconsistent. A captive is redeemed by a price paid only to him that holds him in bondage, but by the same act may be redeemed from labour, from disease, from death, from the persecution of his fellow-captives and from a slavish disj^osition.*

8. Meritum and Satisfactio. Thomas Aquinas

first signalized the distinction between the terms

Meritum and Satisfactio. By Satisfactio he intended

the bearing of Christ's work considered as penal suffering, which satisfies the penal claims of law for the demerit

of sin. By Meritum he intended the bearing of Christ's

work considered as a holy obedience, fulfilling all the

conditions of the original covenant of life upon which

the eternal well-being of his people were suspended.

These are in modern times both embraced under the one

term Satisfaction (which see above), and the distinction

intended by Aquinas is now expressed by the terras active

and passive obedience. The whole earthly career of

Christ, including his death, was obedience in one aspect

and suffering in another. Inasmuch as it was suffering,

it expiated the sins of his people ; inasmuch as it was

* See the closing paragraph of Chapter XII.

obedience, It merited for them the covenanted reward of eternal life.

Principal Poixts Involved. I will now enumerate several points involved in the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement as above stated. It follows, of course, that every argument which tends to establish either one of the principles involved in our view, tends just so far forth to establish the trutl^ of that view as a whole. I shall give a bare statement of these principles, in order to bring out as fully as I may the true nature of the question in debate, and also in order to enable the reader to see the intended bearing of all the scriptural testimony about to be submitted. It is not j^roposed to offer proof of each one of these points separately; but the reader is requested to keep them in mind, and to observe continually whether the unforced language of Scripture is in their favour or the reverse.

These points are as follows.

(1.) Did the effect of the sacrifices offered by the ancient typical priests terminate upon the offerer, upon the spectators, or upon God ? Were those priests ordained to represent God before men, or men before God? Was Christ only a Medium through which divine influences reached man, or was he also and fundamentally the Mediator, opening the way for man to return to God in peace?

(2.) Are the actions of God determined by motives and principles originating wholly in tha divine nature, or may they be j)roperly referred to considerations originating in the creation? We maintain the former alternative. God's immutable nature demands the punishment of sin, and therefore Christ, when made to occupy the place of sinners, suffered that punishment. The advocates of every other view of the nature of the Atonement rrncst maintain the hitter alternative, and refer the sacrifice of Christ U motives originating in tlie moral condition and necessities either of the individual sinner or of the moral universe in general.

(3.) May all virtue be resolved into disinterested benevolence, and all sin into selfishness? In other words, is there nothing else that ought to be except benevolence, and nothing else that ougJit not to be except selfishness? Is justice only a form or mode of benevolence — i. e., does God punish sin simply to prevent its recurrence or to limit its spread, and for the good of the universe as a salutary examj)le? Is sin a relative evil only because it is the invariable cause of suffering to the sinner and to others? And is it punished simply to limit its influence? On all these points, the consistent advocates of the Governmental Theory luust take the affirmative. On the contrary, we affirm that there are many virtues which cannot be included under the head of benevolence, and many sins which cannot be reduced to the category of selfishness; that virtue is that which ought to be for its own sake, as an absolute end in itself, and for no reason beyond ; that sin is intrinsically evil, and deserves punishment because of its intrinsic evil, and for no reason beyond; that divine justice is an exalted perfection, determining God always to treat moral agents as they deserve, and that he punishes sin because this attribute of justice demands that sin shall be treated appropriately to its nature.

(4.) Supposing it to be the purpose of God to malvc provision for the salvation of sinners, were the sufierings of Christ absolutely necessary to that end, rendered

SO by the constitution of the divine nature; or was the necessity for them only contingent upon the optional will of God or upon the conditions of the creature?

(5.) Wliat is the nature of the divine law? Is it a product of the divine will, or a transcript of the divine nature? Hence is the law relaxable or immutable? Is penalty an essential or an unessential element of the law to which it is attached?

(6.) As a matter of fact, is Christ represented in Scripture as having come for the purpose of fulfilling the law, or of relaxing it?

(7.) Has God, as a matter of fact, established such a union between Christ and believers that they are legally one with him : that his death and his life, his Father and his inheritance, his standing and his rights, are theirs as matters of law?

(8.) Did Christ die not only for us, but in a strict sense as our Substitidej in our law-place and stead ?

(9.) Was the guilt (legal obligation to punishment) of our sin imputed to Christ (justly charged to his account), because of tliat legal oneness w^liich the divine will had constituted between him and us?

(10.) Thus bearing justly and legally the guilt of our sin, did he truly expiate that guilt, and thus satisfy justice?

(11.) Do the Scriptures teach that when the believer is justified, the righteousness or rewardableness of Christ's perfect obedience to the divine law in our place is justly charged to our account; or is Justification mere pardon?

died; or was it only to put all men in a salvable state? Did Redemption s^rairo faitli and repentance for those who are redeemed; or are all men redeemed, and then left to provide their OAvn faith and repentance?

The central point to be kept always in view is represented by the question, Did Christ truly expiate the, guilt of our sinf

An examination of all the scriptural evidence substantiating this doctrine would occupy us with the study of iKjarly every book both of the Old and the New Testaments; with an analysis of the nature and relations of every particular doctrine in the entire system of revealed truth; and with a detailed examination of innumerabLe words and passages. A bare outline of this argument is all that will be here attempted. The impression I wish to convey, in conformity with my own clear conviction, is, not that this or that text must mean what we suppose and nothing else, but that the whole of what Scripture says on this subject, when brought together, makes it impossible to doubt what the sacred wnters meant us to believe.

CHAPTER IV.

AS our first argument, we will appeal to what the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of Gorl and his principle of action. In doing this, I shall attempt to prove (a) that the scriptural doctrine is that the ultimate motive and end of all God's actions are in himself; and (6) that the intrinsic and unchangeable perfections of the divine nature, lying back of and determining the divine will, determine him certainly, yet most freely, to punish all sin because of his essential holiness and its essential demerit.

I. Scripture and reason teach us that the ultimate reason and motive of all God's actions are within himself. Since God is infinite, eternal and unchangeable, that which was his first motive in creating the universe must ever continue to be his ultimate motive or chief end in every act concerned in its preservation and government. But God's first motive must have been just the exercise of his own essential perfections, and in their exercise the manifestation of their excellence. This was the only end which could have been chosen by the divine mind in the beginning, before the existence of 48

any other object. It is also infinitely the highest end in itself, and the one which will best secure the happiness and exaltation of the creature himself. It is manifest that a creature cannot be absolutely an end in himself, but only a means to an end. And he is the most exalted when he is made absolutely subservient to that end, which is the highest possible even to the Creator. ■

The Scriptures are very explicit on this subject. (1.) They directly assert it. "All things were created by him and for him." "For of him, and through him, and to him are all things.'^ " Who is over all, God blessed for ever." "The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (2.) The Scriptures always make the glory of God the proper ultimate end of the creature's action. Peter says (1 Pet. iv. 11), that whatsoever gift a man have, he should exercise it to the end that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ. (3.) They show that, as a matter of fact, God always acts with reference to that end in all his dealings with his creatures. Eph. i. 5, 6 : We are predestinated " according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his graceP Rom. ix. 22, 23 : "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power hnoim, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."

The ultimate motive, therefore, for the sacrifice of Christ must have been the divine glory, and not the effect intended to be produced in the creature. But glory is manifested excellence. And moral excellence is manifested only by being exercised. The infinite justice and

love of God both find their highest conceivable exercise in the sacrifice of his own Son as the Substitute of guilty men.

II. The great fact concerning the nature of God and his principles of action, which is most certainly and conspicuously set forth in Scrij^ture, is, that lie is holy. AVhen laying down the law of ceremonial purification, he says (Lev. xi. 44), " Ye shall be holy; for I am holy." The seraphim which Isaiah saw around the throne in the temple, and which John saw in the same relation in heaven (Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8), "rest not day and night, saying. Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty." This best expresses the sum of the results of their insight into his moral nature.

This, be it observed, is predicated of the unchangeable constitution of the nature of God, and not merely of the divine will. (1.) When God commanded the Israelites to be pure, the reason assigned is not "because I so will it," but, "for I am holy." (2.) If moral distinctions are the mere product of the divine will; if they exist only because God wills them to exist, and if they are what they are simply because he wills them to be so, then the proposition that God is holy conveys no meaning. It is only equivalent to saying that he is as he wills to be; and would be just as true when asserted of a wicked as of a holy being. (3.) Although God is most willingly holy, yet holiness is with liim no more optional tlian is existence. Hal), i. 13: "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cand not look on inicpiity." 2 Tim. ii. 13: "He cannot deny himself" Heb. vi. 18: "In which it was impossible for God to lie." (4.) Our own elementary intuitions give us moral distinctions

wliicli arc seen to be absolute, eternal and necessary. It is essentially repugnant to their character to conceive of tlieni in any sense as contingent. They have their noi'in in tlie eternal and necessary nature of God.

8ince God is eternal, his modes of feeling and states of mind are as eternal as his essence. There arc in him none of those successions of modes or frames, and alternations of sentiment and impulse, which characterize our imperfect moral condition. From eternity to eternity he abides the same without change of state or affection. His holiness, therefore, is one infinite perfection of moral excellence, varied only in its outward exercises and manifestations, as it operates upon different objects in different relations.

Now the Scriptures teach us very plainly that this infinite moral perfection or holiness of God stands to sin as immutable and eternal hatred and vindicatory justice; and this not only in some instances and in some relations, but invariably and under all possible conditions. (1.) God hates sin. He is said to hate all the w^orkers of iniquity, and to be angry wdtli the wicked every day. (Ps. V. 5, and vii. 11.) Both the ways and the thoughts of the wicked are said to be an ccbomination to the Lord. This is manifested with terrible energy. Although the heart of God remains eternally as calm as it is deep and strong, the egress of his wrath is terrible. Nali. i. 2: "God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies." (2.) God treats sin as essential ill-desert, as intrinsically meriting punishment. Deut. iv. 24: "For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." Deut.

xxxii. 35: "To lue belongcth vengeance and recompense.'^ Isa. lix. 18: "According to their deeds, accordingJy he will repayP Ex. xxiii. 7 : " I will not justify the wicked." Ezek. xviii. 4: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." 2 Thess. i. 6: "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you." Paul (Heb. ii. 2) says that under the old dispensation every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward. Rom. i. 32: "Knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are icorthy of death." Over and over again, the reason assigned for inflicting a penalty is that the transgression is worthy of it (Dent. xvii. 6, and xxi. 22, &c., &c.), and no other reason is assigned. As God hates sin because of its intrinsic hatefulness, having in itself the reason of the hatred it excites, so he punishes it because of its intrinsic demerit, having the reason of its punishment in itself. Sin can no more exist without punishableness than it can exist without hatefulness. As it is inconceivable that God should in a single instance fail to hate sin as pollution, so it is inconceivable that he should in a single instance fail to punish it as demerit. There has often been forgiveness for tlie sinner, but not a single instance of forgiveness for the sin; and the sinner is never forgiven except on condition of the condign punishment of the sin. Paul (Heb. ix. 22), in revicAving the old law, declared as the sum of the whole that without the shedding of blood there was no remission. It was the blood that made atonement for the soul. Lev. xvii. 11. And in order to the salvation of sinful men, it was necessary that Christ should expiate sin by his death, to the end that God might be

just and tlic justifier of lilm that believeth in Jesus (Rom. iii. 20); tliat is, to enable God to pardon the sinner without violating his own essential righteousness, which necessarily antagonizes sin.

To the question, Why God punishes sin, only four distinct answers are possible. (1.) That all punishment is design(Kl for the reformation of the offender. This confounds punishment with chastisement, and is a solution obviously inadmissible in the case of the eternal perdition of the reprobate and of the vicarious sufferings of Christ. (2.) That the reason and necessity of punishment is to be resolved into the sovereign good pleasure of God. This position has been held by Dr. Twisse, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, and others, but is not held by any prominent party in these days. (3.) That God punishes sin in order to deter the subjects of his moral government from its commission. This is a necessary corollary of the theory that all virtue is comprehended in disinterested benevolence. In that view, justice is one mode of benevolence, prompting God to punish the individual sinner for the sake of the the greater good of the moral universe to be secured thereby. (4.) The true view is, that God is determined, by the immutable holiness of his nature, to punish all sin because of its intrinsic guilt or demerit; the effect produced on the moral universe being incidental as an end, and dependent as a consequence, upon the essential character of punishment, as that which ex])iat(\s guilt and vindicates righteousness.

This is the centre of the question in del)ate between ourselves and the advocates of the Governmental and of the floral Theory of the Atonement. Both parties 5*

estimate it as a moral question of the utmost importance, and incapable of compromise. Dr. N. AV. Taylor* says that to punish sin on account of its intrinsic demerit, or for any other purpose except the promotion of happiness, "is beyond the capacity of infernal malice." A recent writer in the New Englander declares that our doctrine represents Jehovah as acting upon principles that would disgrace the Jew Shylock. So also Dr. J. Young: " That wild and daring transcendentalism, which, in a greater or less degree, essentially affects evangelical theology at tlie present hour, is not by any means the most fatal evil. The doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice is

immeasurably worse in its moral tendency This,

beyond all comparison, is the deadliest error." f There is indeed not room for compromise. AVhat these men blaspheme, the inspired Scriptures and the Christian Church revere and vindicate as an essential element of that holiness which is the crowning glory of our God.

1. Disinterested benevolence is not the whole of virtue. (1.) Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, for example, the natural parental affection, are purely instinctive, and have no positive moral character. (2.) Some exercises of disinterested l^enevolence, such as the weak yielding of a judge to sympathy with a guilty man or his friends, are positively immoral. (3.) There are virtuous priiicii)les incapable of being resolved into disinterested benevolence, such as a proper prudential regard for one's Dwn highest good; aspiration and effort after personal Gxcellcnce, holy abhorrence of sin for its own

* "Moral Government of God," vol. ii., p. 278. t John Young, LL.D., of Edinburgh. "Life and Light of Men," pp. 47G, 477,

sake, and just punishment of sin in order to vindicate righteousness. Ps. xcvii. 10: "Ye that love tlie Lord, hate evil." (4.) The idea of oughtaess is the essential constitutive idea of virtue. No possible analysis of the idea of benevolence will give the idea of moral obligation. Tlds is sim})le, irresolvable, ultimate. Oughtness is the gcmus, and benevolence one of the species comprehended in it.

These principles are admitted by some who yet refuse to accept the Church doctrine of the Atonement as the necessary consequent. Barnes* argues (a) that punishment is not intended, and does not even tend, to secure the reformation of the offender; (6) that the sole end of punishment is not to deter others from a repetition of the offence, and so protect the community; (c) "that punishment is intended as a proper expression of what is due to crime." " It is inflicted because it is right it should be inflicted. It is inflicted because the offence deserves such an expression."

2. As the essential and irresolvable characteristic of virtue is oughtness, and of sin its opposite oughtnotness, so it is an intrinsic and immutable attribute of sin that it oiigJit to be punished. This obligation to punishment is an ultimate fict of moral consciousness; it cannot be resolved into any other principle whatsoever; it is intrinsic in sin without reference to any other principle. (1.) This is involved in every awakened sinner's consciousness of his own demerit. Ps. li. 4: "I have done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be just when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest." In its higher degrees this feeling rises into remorse, and can be